| Title |
Development and Validation of the Genetic Counseling Self‐Efficacy Scale (GCSES)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-018-0249-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Caldwell, Katie Wusik, Hua He, Geoffrey Yager, Carrie Atzinger |
| Abstract |
This study describes the development of a self-efficacy scale that is specific to genetic counseling and based both on Bandura's self-efficacy theory (2006) and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling practice-based competencies (2013). The phase 1 validation compared genetic counseling students (n = 20) and genetic counselors (n = 18). Nine items were removed from the scale at this point for lack of discrimination or redundancy. The phase 2 validation included a larger cohort of genetic counseling students (n = 168). Factor analysis identified six factors accounting for 58% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha as well as the inter-item correlations and item-total correlations of both the full scale items and underlying factors indicated that the items and factors of the scale are sufficiently related, but not redundant. The newly developed Genetic Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale (GCSES) has the potential to be used as an outcome measure in research related to training or professional development of genetic counselors as well as for a training tool. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 57% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 12% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#5,933,529
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#345
of 1,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,328
of 358,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#13
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.